Military Review

Battle of Montjisar: as the young king of the mighty Sultan defeated. Part one

69
The presented article tells about the amazing, but little-known battle of our time, which occurred in the distant era of the Crusades in the Middle East. Strangely enough, this battle is said little by descendants of both parties to the conflict: for Muslims, this is a shameful page in the life of their hero Saladin, and for Western Europeans, with their tendency to hypercriticism and denial of success. weapons their ancestors, especially those related to religion, is also today an “uncomfortable topic.” Perhaps some of the facts will seem to many destructive stereotypes, but nevertheless, everything stated is based on the exact data of medieval chronicles. Much of the material is published for the first time in Russian.


In the course of the plot development of a well-known film telling about the XII century crusaders “Kingdom of Heaven”, a certain victory of Jerusalem King Baldwin IV (1161-1185) over the Egyptian Sultan Saladin (1137-1193), whose consequences the Muslim ruler remembered his whole life . This is a real battle of Montjisar that took place on 25 November 1177 of the year in which a small army of "Jerusalem" (as the inhabitants of the main crusader state in the Middle East were then called) miraculously defeated several times the large army of the strongest Muslim ruler of Front Asia .

Battle Story

The young king Baldwin IV (Baudouin, Baudouin le Lepreux) came to the throne of the Kingdom of Jerusalem 15 on July 1174, when his father, King Amori (Amalric), suddenly died of dysentery (or from poison) at the age of just 38. The young prince received an excellent upbringing: he was taught the best knights of the kingdom to martial art, and as his main teacher he had William, Archbishop of Tire, who was not only a priest and a very educated person, but also an outstanding manager, an excellent writer and a skilled politician, being in fact prime minister of the kingdom.


King of Jerusalem at the head of his army in the film "Kingdom of Heaven" (as Balduin IV - Edward Norton)


But even at a young age, Prince Baldwin became infected with leprosy, this terrible and generally incurable disease even today, and his subjects almost immediately after his coronation began to look for a successor to him who would have received the throne of Jerusalem by marrying his sister Sibilla. This led to a fierce political struggle of various groups for influence. But the worst thing was that the internal disruption in the chief of the Crusader states in Utremere (Zamorye, from the French Territoires outré mer - Lands on the Other Side of the Sea) went against the background of the growing power of the Sultan of Egypt Yusuf ibn Ayyub , known to Europeans by its throne name as Saladin (Salahuddin).

Saladin on the background of his troops in the film "Kingdom of Heaven" (as Sultan - Gassan Massoud)


At the beginning of 1170, this ruler, descended from the Kurdish military mercenary clan and became the sultan of Egypt, after strengthening his power in the Nile Valley, capturing a number of areas in Jordan and on the Arabian Peninsula, started a war in Syria. As a result, November 27 1174, Saladin with a detachment of his troops entered Damascus, declaring this day "the day of the triumph of Sunni Islam" and "the day of the union of two jewels" - that is, Damascus joining Cairo (remember this day, we will return to this date), and soon captured Homs and Ham. However, his plans to conquer Aleppo (Aleppo), an ancient city around which heavy fighting continues today, the last major center of resistance of his power in Syria, in 1175-1176. were never implemented, because in the fight against him, Emir Aleppo relied on the help of such seemingly different forces as the Crusaders of Zamorje and the Muslim Ismaili sect of “hashishins” (assassins) of Lebanon.

Based on the current situation, Salah al-Din al-Melik al-Nazir ("The pious in the faith of Islam, the overcoming all lord" - his throne name was just so magnificent) temporarily postponed the plan for the further conquest of Syria and Iraq and decided to destroy the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as the main and largest of the possessions of Western European Christians in the Middle East.

Campaign start

Having managed to secretly concentrate troops in Northern Egypt, Saladin waited until the time when part of the Jerusalem armed forces were involved in an expedition to Syria, and in the fall of 1177 of the year struck an unexpected blow. At the head of a large army (at least in 26.000 soldiers), he marched to Jerusalem (according to the information of Mikhail Syrian, the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church at the time, traveler and prominent chronicler, the total number of soldiers prepared for the campaign reached 33.000). According to Wilhelm of Tyr, who apparently relied on the testimony of prisoners, it consisted of professional infantry 18.000, mainly from Sudanese black mercenaries (as we know, Sudan, Somalia and Eritrea even today are sources of Islamism and instability) and 8.000 professional cavalry. In addition, as part of the forces prepared for the invasion was the Egyptian militia and light-wake Bedouin detachments. Most likely, these data are quite objective, for example, the latter figure correlates very well with the number of “ghoulam” corps known from Muslim sources, which was content for Saladin - in 1181, they were 8.529 people.


An example of the armament of some soldiers from the army of Saladin - dismounted and equestrian ghouls and a walking archer


It must be said that the concentration of forces by Muslims and the sudden outbreak of war turned out to be absolutely unexpected for Christians. They did not even have time to gather all the forces of the kingdom, some of which were in Syria, not to mention getting help from the rulers of Armenia, Byzantium or from Europe. Collecting his small army, which included about 2-3.000 infantry and a minimum of 300-375 of the vassal knights of the King of Jerusalem, Balduin IV addressed the enemy.

The strategic intelligence of the Crusaders then clearly failed - their agents did not notice or could not report to Jerusalem about the concentration of Saladin’s army in northeastern Egypt. In addition to the surprise factor, there was a strong underestimation of the enemy - apparently, the Jerusalemites decided that they were dealing with a large raid party or a small army marching to Ascalon to capture it, while the vanguard of a large army of Islamists was aimed at capturing the capital and destroying The kingdom of Jerusalem as such.

The plan of the Crusaders was supposed to stop the invasion of the "detachment" of the enemy in the border area in the area of ​​the ancient city of Ascalon (present-day Ashkelon in southern Israel). In general, it should be said that the kingdom of Jerusalem in the XII century geographically resembled the modern state of Israel, whereas Egypt, Northern Arabia, most of Syria and part of northern Iraq were in the possession of Saladin, and, therefore, the mobilization resources of Muslims were several times larger, which has always complicated the situation for the crusaders.

In accordance with this plan, a detachment of light Christian cavalry "Turkopolov" ("Turkoplay", "Turkopulov"), carrying out the functions of border guards, apparently tried to repel the invasion as it seemed "raid party", but was defeated in a battle with a large Muslim the vanguard. By the way, “Turkopolis” were a very interesting type of troops, which the Crusaders of Zamorie introduced in their presence under the influence of local conditions: they were horse archers on fast horses in light armor, who performed functions like the Cossacks in Russia - defense of borders front reconnaissance and other traveling light cavalry service. Turkopolis were recruited from local Orthodox Christians, or from Muslims who converted to Orthodoxy or Catholicism; It is possible that they included Muslims who for other reasons migrated to the territory of the Christian states of the Middle East, and who were allowed to continue to practice their religion subject to military service (just like, for example, Israeli Muslim Arabs).


Cavalry of the Kingdom of Jerusalem: Knight-Templar, equestrian sergeant and equestrian archer of the Turkopolov corps


A small contingent of Templars from the frontier fortress of Gaza moved to support the Turkopol squad, but was also forced to retreat back to the fortress, where it was blocked by an Islamist squad. However, the main thing that the frontier units did was that they could, if not detain the invasion, then at least inform the main forces of the crusaders about the approach of a huge Muslim army. The troops under the command of King Balduin IV, realizing that they had no chance in a field battle, were able to avoid destruction and go to Ascalon, where they were also blocked, while the main army of Saladin continued to move to Jerusalem. Ramla was captured and burned; The ancient port of Arsuf and the city of Lod (Lydda), the birthplace of Sv. George the Victorious, who is considered the patron saint of Christian soldiers. Worst of all, even the garrison of Jerusalem was greatly weakened: the airbahn with a force of several thousand infantry from the Jerusalem militia, speaking a little later than the forces of the king and greatly lagging behind on the road, was surrounded and destroyed by superior Saracen troops. It seemed that the kingdom of Jerusalem was put on the brink of destruction.

Prepare the parties for battle

Saladin also believed that his plan was being implemented quite successfully: the Crusader strike forces were lured into the field and destroyed or blocked in parts in the fortresses, and his army slowly (due to the large convoy carrying siege vehicles), but surely went to the cherished the targets are the city of Al-Quds (as the Arabs call Jerusalem). But Rex Hierosolomitanus Balduin IV decided that he should at all costs try to save his capital, and by a surprise attack knocking down the blocking forces, he marched out of Ascalon following the main army of Muslims.

Crusader warriors of that era, based on the theoretical concepts of St.. Bernard of Clairvaux, some other Christian writers, and also on previous battles experience, believed that they could crush an army that was much larger in size even by a small detachment, but if there were a number of conditions (which, one might say, have not lost their relevance today) . First, if there are a sufficient number of highly mobile (then mounted) soldiers armed with the most modern and high-quality weapons; secondly, if there is professional military training for these soldiers, including the ability to act in conditions of unusual terrain, for example, in desert conditions; thirdly, it was necessary for these warriors to have the highest motivation in the deep Christian faith, to keep their minds clean and ready to accept death in battle as the highest reward for achievement. As we will see later, all this among the soldiers of Balduin IV’s army was there.

Saladin at that time believed that his opponent was no longer able to challenge him in a field battle and allowed his troops to behave as if they had already won the final victory. His army was divided into groups and small parties, which scattered across the southern and central part of the kingdom of Jerusalem, robbing, plundering and capturing the inhabitants. Seeing no real threat from the garrisons of the fortresses and preparing the blockade of Jerusalem, the Sultan, apparently, specially dismissed part of the troops for loot. After all, everything that was captured or burned on enemy territory made the enemy economically weaker, and at the same time served as evidence of the alleged inability of the Christian rulers to protect their land.

Moreover, Islamic fundamentalist theologians in his entourage (by the way, just like the preachers of modern radical Islam) stated that the capture of the ruins and settlements of local residents, among which even under the authority of the Crusaders, were Muslims, was a well-deserved punishment. for them because instead of conducting “Gazavat” against Christians, they allowed “kafirs” to rule over themselves, having entered into an alliance with them, and thereby became “traitors to the interests of Islam” - “munafiqs”. Although in reality everything was much simpler - the Kingdom of Jerusalem was different, apart from the accepted freedom of religion, also by reasonably balanced governance and well-developed legislation (and from the exact Koranic, not propaganda point of view, it was Saladin himself who was a munaphik, which proved and its behavior in the Battle of Tell Al-Safit, for which he was subjected to reproaches and ridicule from other "jihadists").

Here is what Muslim writer and traveler Ibn Jubayr wrote about the Crusader states, who during that era made a haj through North Africa to Arabia: “Our path took place among endless fields and settlements, the Muslim inhabitants of which feel fine on the lands of the Franks ... The Franks do not require anything more than a small fruit tax. The houses belong to the Muslims themselves, as well as all the good that is in them.

... All the cities of the Syrian coast, in the hands of the Franks, are subject to their Christian laws, and most of the land holdings - villages and small villages - belong to Muslims, and they have Sharia norms.

The hearts of many of these Muslims have mental turmoil when they see the situation of their fellow believers who live in the lands of Islamic rulers, because in terms of well-being and respect for their rights, their position is the exact opposite. The biggest shame for Muslims is that they have to endure injustice from their rulers, the coreligionists, and at the same time the enemies of their faith rule them with justice ... "


Reading these lines, one can only be surprised that "everything returns to normal". For example, these words of a medieval traveler can be easily applied to a comparative description of the position of modern Israeli Arabs and their brethren in the Palestinian Authority or in Syria.

So, thanks to the observance of the rights of all citizens and the correct tax policy that ensured the country's economic prosperity, even Muslims in the Crusader states lived “under the yoke of Christians” much more comfortable than under the rule of their own co-religionists in neighboring Syria or Egypt. The kingdom of Jerusalem was like a model, showing not only the advantages of Christian government, but also an example of the prosperous coexistence of three world religions within one state. And that was one of a number of reasons why Saladin needed to destroy him.
Author:
69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ovod84
    ovod84 27 May 2016 07: 41
    +6
    I would not say that Muslims lived well under the yoke of European Christians, but I do not argue Saladin lost the battle, but won the war by defeating the crusaders, leaving Jerusalem behind. I can say that in that era the East was more tolerant than Christian Catholics, Jews lived high like Christians, they paid a tax to the treasury of Dzhizyu, which was paid not by the Muslim population, they were not burned or expelled.
    1. Pereira
      Pereira 27 May 2016 10: 29
      +13
      The Kingdom of Jerusalem was, as it were, a model showing not only the advantages of Christian rule, but also an example of the safe coexistence of the three world religions within one state. And this was one of several reasons why Saladin needed to destroy him.


      Met in historical literature mention of how Christians from Hungary, Austria, etc. in the 15 century they fled to Turkish territory for the sake of fair laws and peaceful existence that they could not get at home from their feudal lords. It was better for Christians to live under the yoke of the Ottomans.

      What are both of these examples talking about? Only that sometimes wise administrators are present in the occupation authorities. But this does not happen so often. Almost an exception.
      Therefore, the author’s generalization regarding the civilizing role of the Franks looks like an exaggeration.
      1. alatanas
        alatanas 27 May 2016 13: 32
        +3
        Back in the 15th century, the Sultan's document was issued stating that the "paradise" (paradise - the herd, that is, non-Muslims) should be kept freer in the border areas dabi was an example for those who live on the other side of the borders of the Ottoman state. By the way, the main division of the population was on the "faithful", ie, Muslims and paradise - or giaurs (from the Arabic "kafir", ie, infidel).
    2. razmik72
      razmik72 27 May 2016 10: 32
      +20
      Quote: ovod84
      I would not say that Muslims lived well under the yoke of European Christians, but I do not argue Saladin lost the battle, but won the war by defeating the crusaders, leaving Jerusalem behind. I can say that in that era the East was more tolerant than Christian Catholics, Jews lived high like Christians, they paid a tax to the treasury of Dzhizyu, which was paid not by the Muslim population, they were not burned or expelled.

      The history of my people shows that Muslims were not particularly tolerant. If Russia is now in bad relations with the West, this does not mean that Muslim rulers were good guys.
      1. Cherkashin Ivan
        Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 11: 20
        +11
        I sympathize with your people. I think the Armenian Genocide is no less evil than the Holocaust. But as far as I know, Turkish nationalism has been present in the acute phase since the 19th century. It would be the extermination of the Gentiles by the state policy of the Ottoman Empire from the moment of its inception, by 1915 no one but Muslims would remain on the territory of the empire. While the sultans were sane, the Armenian diaspora played a serious role in the life of the Ottoman Empire.
        1. razmik72
          razmik72 27 May 2016 12: 16
          +8
          Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
          I sympathize with your people. I think the Armenian Genocide is no less evil than the Holocaust. But as far as I know, Turkish nationalism has been present in the acute phase since the 19th century. It would be the extermination of the Gentiles by the state policy of the Ottoman Empire from the moment of its inception, by 1915 no one but Muslims would remain on the territory of the empire. While the sultans were sane, the Armenian diaspora played a serious role in the life of the Ottoman Empire.

          Compared with the Young Turks, the Ottoman sultans now look like small dolls, but even they did not oppress Christians at the time. Just compared to the monster (Young Turks), earlier Muslim rulers look quite respectable.
          1. Cherkashin Ivan
            Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 12: 35
            +3
            Not in defense of the Sultans, but what kind of oppression was, for example, at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire (not a specialist, so I can’t know a lot)?
            Taxes are more for non-Muslims and blood taxes (but this is in the Balkans).
            What does this empire look like at birth. A huge number of non-Muslim population and very few Turks. And here the reverse scenario occurs for the Bulgarian people, not the Slavs dissolved the nomads in their midst, and the Christian population of Byzantium turned into a Turk over 5 centuries. As far as I know, in the 19th century the Ottomans scorned nomads (Turks or Turks).
            1. razmik72
              razmik72 27 May 2016 13: 04
              +2
              Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
              Not in defense of the Sultans, but what kind of oppression was, for example, at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire (not a specialist, so I can’t know a lot)?
              Taxes are more for non-Muslims and blood taxes (but this is in the Balkans).
              What does this empire look like at birth. A huge number of non-Muslim population and very few Turks. And here the reverse scenario occurs for the Bulgarian people, not the Slavs dissolved the nomads in their midst, and the Christian population of Byzantium turned into a Turk over 5 centuries. As far as I know, in the 19th century the Ottomans scorned nomads (Turks or Turks).

              Christians were oppressed not only by the Ottoman Turks, but also by other Muslim rulers. The Egyptian Mamelukes, who had nothing to do with the Ottomans, dealt a mortal blow to the independent Armenian state in Cilicia.
              1. Cherkashin Ivan
                Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 13: 18
                +4
                The destruction of the state is not exactly religious oppression. I do not think that the Mamelukes were guided by hatred of the Armenians in their actions. I do not say that everything was good in relations with Christians in Muslim states. Perhaps there were pogroms and the lack of social elevators for non-Muslims. But you have to be objective. In Spain, there were no Muslims left in the 16th century, they even got rid of those who converted to Catholicism. And in the Middle East, large Christian communities existed quite normally until recently. And the rule of the mentioned Mamelukes in Egypt did not prevent the Copts from being preserved there.
            2. Mikhail Matyugin
              27 May 2016 16: 38
              +1
              Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
              Not in defense of the Sultans, but what kind of oppression was, for example, at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire (not a specialist, so I can’t know a lot)?
              Taxes are more for non-Muslims and blood taxes (but this is in the Balkans).

              I will simply say - you are mistaken. It will be possible to write material about this. The general oppression against non-Muslims has always been much stronger. Moreover, the Ottomans are still the easiest, "light" version of the policy of Islamization.
              1. Cherkashin Ivan
                Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 17: 43
                0
                Then I will just say - evidence and facts. I am ready to change my mind, but "you are wrong" weak argumentation.
              2. raif
                raif 29 May 2016 00: 58
                0
                everyone can also tell you - "you are mistaken." the article is full of allusions to the militancy of Islam, some kind of incorrect comparisons with later times. one gets the impression that the author was offended by some Muslim - and this article was written in revenge. do not blame everything on Islam. I will give a number of examples from the 20th century. war in Croatia - Orthodox Serbs versus Catholic Croats. South Ossetia - Orthodox Christians on both sides of the front. China's conflicts with India and Vietnam - everything is completely confused, but without Islam it was done. so a request to the author - do not tremble at the sight of the crescent
            3. Rezident007
              Rezident007 29 May 2016 16: 55
              0
              Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
              Not in defense of the Sultans, but what kind of oppression was, for example, at the beginning of the Ottoman Empire (not a specialist, so I can’t know a lot)?
              Taxes are more for non-Muslims and blood taxes (but this is in the Balkans).
              What does this empire look like at birth. A huge number of non-Muslim population and very few Turks. And here the reverse scenario occurs for the Bulgarian people, not the Slavs dissolved the nomads in their midst, and the Christian population of Byzantium turned into a Turk over 5 centuries. As far as I know, in the 19th century the Ottomans scorned nomads (Turks or Turks).

              The East Asian population with the Slavic-European "cannot be diluted", because their genes seem to be, on the contrary, stronger, well, that is. "grind" the Slavic-European race literally. East Asian countries cannot be assimilated. I heard somewhere that one ancient wise Chinese said that it is impossible to conquer China forever, tk. in two or three generations all the natives and conquerors will still turn into Chinese. Fact.
    3. Proxima
      Proxima 27 May 2016 10: 51
      +5
      Information based on the records, even of an Islamic chronicler, about how the Muslim population prospered under the "enlightened and humane" rule of the Europeans, with their "perfect legislation and taxation" and vice versa - groaning from the oppression of the same rulers - should not be taken to absolute. The crusaders did what was beneficial to them at the moment. If it was expedient for them to cut out the entire Muslim population, they would have done it without a twinge of conscience. This is the TWELFTH CENTURY! How outrageous their "colleagues" were in the Western Slavic lands and in the Baltic states - probably it is not necessary to mention.
      1. xan
        xan 27 May 2016 12: 50
        +8
        Quote: Proxima
        The Crusaders did what was beneficial for them at the moment.

        And even that they could not do. Mired in feuds and intrigues, and in the face of the united Arabs could not unite. They ate themselves. In my opinion, the Arab world at that time was more civilized and tolerant. Europe has rushed forward since the time of the Spanish Reconquista and especially the Italian Renaissance.
        1. Proxima
          Proxima 27 May 2016 13: 18
          +4
          Quote: xan
          Europe has rushed forward since the time of the Spanish Reconquista and especially the Italian Renaissance.

          I agree completely, and before that there was an "Islamic revival" - an unprecedented rise in the Islamic sciences, algebra, astronomy, geometry and others for Europeans.
        2. Mikhail Matyugin
          27 May 2016 16: 43
          +2
          Quote: xan
          Mired in feuds and intrigues, and in the face of the united Arabs could not unite. They ate themselves. In my opinion, the Arab world at that time was more civilized and tolerant.

          Respected xan, I will disappoint you a little, because you are captured by stereotypes.
          Islamic rulers in the same way "were mired in turmoil and intrigue", and "in the face of the united forces of the European crusaders could not rally." laughing

          The crusader states were destroyed exclusively by military force, including as a too revealing example of wise administration.

          About the "religious tolerance" of the Arab world, especially then, in the Middle Ages, is another myth. The present unfortunately shows that the Arab-Muslim world is much more intolerant in the religious sphere (and this even though in our time there is no military domination).

          In general, real life is much more complex than simply dividing into "white" and "black".
    4. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 11: 12
      +1
      It seems to me that this is not primarily about religious tolerance. In the above quote, more attention is paid to taxes and the attitude of the authorities towards property.
      And all the horrors with the fires of the Inquisition were ahead. At the time of the battle, even the Cathars had not yet reached their hands. And the Middle East was not a "native" land for the knights, and here they apparently behaved smarter.
    5. Mikhail Matyugin
      27 May 2016 16: 36
      +2
      Quote: ovod84
      Muslims lived well under the yoke of European Christians,

      The fact is that our consciousness is largely clogged with stereotypes, therefore this material was presented. The testimony of the Muslim side was given specifically to show the true state of affairs.

      Quote: ovod84
      yes I do not argue Saladin lost the battle, but won the war by defeating the crusaders

      You will probably laugh, but TU Saladin just lost the war. Moreover, he signed peace with Baldwin IV. And in 1185 she started a new war, which ... again he did not win by surrender, "having won on points", and again signed a peace with the European kings!
  2. Humpty
    Humpty 27 May 2016 07: 59
    +6
    Thank you for the article . I look forward to continuing. The film aroused interest in the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
    Hollywood shamelessly cut out a third of the film to force it into the blockbuster format and altered some of the dialogue to try to cover up holes and glaring inconsistencies.
    Who has not watched - I recommend the directorial version, it is an hour longer and not about what Hollywood put out on the screens.
    For the director, this is not a medieval action movie, but a film primarily about the atonement of sins and good.
    1. MARGADON
      MARGADON 27 May 2016 08: 20
      +6
      One of my favorite films. I’m watching it with pleasure, although it failed at the box office for unknown reasons.
      1. kagorta
        kagorta 27 May 2016 08: 45
        +3
        I, too, is among the ten favorite films.
  3. Max repp
    Max repp 27 May 2016 08: 12
    +2
    Great article! Hope to continue. The Kingdom of Heaven film was watched three times.
  4. Bashibuzuk
    Bashibuzuk 27 May 2016 08: 23
    0
    Some kind of strange publication.
    Honestly, I regrettably did not find the martial art of the 16-year-old king.
    However, as well as the martial art of the 40-year-old, wise by experience, mercenary sultan.
    The impression that one gang ran into another. But, shirnuvshis-drunk-rolling beforehand, on the "arrow" behaved inadequately. And I received a full response. Or not complete.
    What do we see?
    Not a weak army with no organization and discipline, not meeting any worthy resistance, set off in all serious ways.
    Another army, much smaller in number, at least by discipline, tried to do something.
    Who won is not clear from the article. Although it is not difficult to predict the situation and development.
    ...
    But there are many and detailed references to "Islamists", Christians, Hashishins ... and wandering monks.
    Beautiful such drawings, a sight for sore eyes. Like straight from Hollywood.
    ...
    Well, and what did I learn from the publication?
    Nothing, actually.
    The film "Kingdom of Heaven" is even more informative in this regard. Especially Eva Grinn's face, lovely sight.
    1. MARGADON
      MARGADON 27 May 2016 08: 59
      +4
      This is the first part of the article, we will look further.
      1. Bashibuzuk
        Bashibuzuk 27 May 2016 09: 06
        0
        Well, in principle, I assumed so.
        Only there is no inscription - To be continued. This is somewhat annoying.
        ...
        There will be a continuation - read.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 27 May 2016 09: 52
      +8
      Who won is not clear from the article. Although it is not difficult to predict the situation and development.
      That is, the words "Part One" in the title of the article written in large print are not enough for you? Did the author have to repeat this in every paragraph of the text? belay
      1. Proxima
        Proxima 27 May 2016 11: 05
        +1
        Quote: abrakadabre
        That is, the words "Part One" in the title of the article written in large print are not enough for you? Did the author have to repeat this in every paragraph of the text? belay

        No one is surprised that a person doesn’t read an article and is eager to comment on it, but here you can’t even look at the headline ...
    3. Chiropractor
      Chiropractor 27 May 2016 11: 34
      +2
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Beautiful such drawings, a sight for sore eyes


      Equestrian ghoul - Asian?
      in a hurried ghoul on his head - what kind of bag with a bunchuk?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mikhail Matyugin
        27 May 2016 16: 47
        +2
        Quote: Kostoprav
        Equestrian ghoul - Asian?
        in a hurried ghoul on his head - what kind of bag with a bunchuk?

        What surprises you? The drawings are historically true and are based on the available medieval images by the way.

        The "gulyams" were taken from many peoples, including the Mongoloid.

        In general, "gulyam" is a "warrior-slave", but also a kind of analogue of the term "well done", "dashing" - Turkic "ulan", "oglan". So everything was possible.

        Salahuddin himself was generally Kurdish if that.
    4. Mikhail Matyugin
      27 May 2016 16: 45
      +1
      Quote: Bashibuzuk
      Honestly, I regrettably did not find the martial art of the 16-year-old king.
      However, as well as the martial art of the 40-year-old, wise by experience, mercenary sultan.

      In the second part, everything will be much clearer.

      But the reality is that yes, Saladin was a cunning commander, and proved it in a number of battles, including in the battles before the decisive battle at Montjisar, but King Baldwin IV and his entourage turned out to be the best warriors.
  5. ICT
    ICT 27 May 2016 08: 38
    +2
    Quote: Bashibuzuk
    And I got the answer in full.


  6. King, just king
    King, just king 27 May 2016 09: 17
    +2
    It’s strange. The author of the minuses hung. Normal article, we look forward to continuing. Only, it will be necessary to write about Masefat.

    Probably nominated because of the fairy tale movie "Kingdom of Heaven".
    1. Sobol
      Sobol 27 May 2016 13: 54
      0
      Quote: King, just king
      It’s strange. The author of the minuses hung. Normal article, we look forward to continuing. Only, it will be necessary to write about Masefat.

      Probably nominated because of the fairy tale movie "Kingdom of Heaven".

      It may be a fairy tale, but a five-plus film has been worked out, especially the directorial version is good.
  7. kon125
    kon125 27 May 2016 09: 57
    0
    We ask for continuation, and I dare to say in response to the comment of the first commentator that the words of the eyewitness are given. Uninterested in distortion. It is always better to study the primary sources
  8. pigkiller
    pigkiller 27 May 2016 11: 03
    0
    Kingdom of Jerusalem as an example of a historical chimera as presented by L.N. Gumilyov.
    Although the first attempt by the European state. construction in B. Vostok was interesting.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      31 May 2016 13: 29
      +1
      Quote: pigkiller
      Although the first attempt by the European state. construction in B. Vostok was interesting.

      Do you mean by these words? formation of the Hittite empire and Palestinian policies? maybe the Crito-Minoan kingdom? or Hellenistic states after the campaign of Alexander? These were just the first attempts. The formation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is a very special process and very late.
  9. Heimdall47
    Heimdall47 27 May 2016 11: 09
    +2
    Wonderful article. Crusaders - handsome, butchered Muslims always, like a tortoise god. They would have more unity then and everything was fine.
  10. CRASH
    CRASH 27 May 2016 11: 40
    +2
    From what is written, it is clear that a person is always looking for prosperity, and runs from there where it’s shitty. Whether you are a Muslim or a Christian.
  11. Riv
    Riv 27 May 2016 14: 22
    -1
    Looking ahead: the sympathies and antipathies of the local population towards Christians have nothing to do with it. They certainly took place, but did not affect the course of hostilities. It was another matter.

    As noted in the article, Salah ad-Din too dispersed his strength. There were objective reasons for this: the campaign against Jerusalem was largely an impromptu. I had to act quickly and did not have time to stock up the required amount of provisions. Muslims were forced to disperse and rob the local population. This took advantage of Baldwin.

    He managed to deliver the news to the Templars blocked in Gaza. They broke through the blockade and joined his army. A start was made, now the Christian army was almost inferior in strength to any of the disparate parts of the Muslim army. Wasting no time, the Christians quickly marched toward Jerusalem and hit the rear of the marching army. The friendly onslaught of the heavy knightly cavalry overthrew the Mamelukes, and pressed the Muslims to the hill, not allowing them to regroup. Soon the battle turned into a massacre. The runners were finished off by the mercenaries of the Turkopol.

    Salah ad-Din was pursued right up to the Sinai Peninsula, but he managed to escape from the chase.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      27 May 2016 22: 33
      +1
      Quote: Riv
      He managed to deliver the news to the Templars blocked in Gaza. They broke through the blockade and joined his army.

      With the Templar detachment blocked in Gaza (yes, in the same one, from the "Gaza Strip") - everything is not easy. It is not clear from the sources - whether they were unblocked or "unblocked" themselves, or most likely remained until the victory in the fortress (and the Templars who walked with the Grand Master from Jerusalem along with the king are completely different forces).

      Quote: Riv
      and pressed the Muslims to the hill

      From the second part everything will be much clearer. Just for reference, it’s simply unrealistic to squeeze an army with medieval weapons an order of magnitude larger to a hill.
      1. Riv
        Riv 29 May 2016 03: 22
        -1
        First: not "by an order of magnitude". Although "three times" - is also not small.
        Secondly: still as real. The terrain there today is very rugged (why do you think the Muslim army stretched out on the march?), And a thousand years ago, erosion did not work over the hills. On the hillsides are blocks of stone. It was on such a slope of the Mamluks that they drove. Otherwise, one really does not see the possibility of blocking a sufficiently disciplined, mobile guard with lesser forces.
  12. Torins
    Torins 27 May 2016 14: 56
    +1
    Quote: Pereira
    The Kingdom of Jerusalem was, as it were, a model showing not only the advantages of Christian rule, but also an example of the safe coexistence of the three world religions within one state. And this was one of several reasons why Saladin needed to destroy him.


    Met in historical literature mention of how Christians from Hungary, Austria, etc. in the 15 century they fled to Turkish territory for the sake of fair laws and peaceful existence that they could not get at home from their feudal lords. It was better for Christians to live under the yoke of the Ottomans.

    What are both of these examples talking about? Only that sometimes wise administrators are present in the occupation authorities. But this does not happen so often. Almost an exception.
    Therefore, the author’s generalization regarding the civilizing role of the Franks looks like an exaggeration.

    The keyword is in the 15th century, but the article is about the 12th century. 300 years difference! Don't you understand that? The first four crusades were for the sake of faith and glory, then everything gradually changed. The same Richard I the Lionheart spent money for a trip to Jerusalem, totaling 4 years of the treasury. Without any hope of returning at least part of the campaign. At the same time, in the campaign itself, all reserves for replenishment of provisions were also spent. After that, he constantly wrote letters to his homeland with a request to send food and money, but he was "not heard" at home.
  13. a housewife
    a housewife 27 May 2016 15: 41
    0
    Come on! Faith, religion, customs - all this is nonsense. If this were the case, everyone would have lived peacefully for a long time, each with his own concept of God. Everywhere - only and always profit, nothing but profit. For the sake of profit they will live in a world with the most vile little people, for the sake of profit - they will betray and sell their own. And the world stands only on those people who have a conscience. And there are not so many of them, but, apparently, it’s enough that the world does not scotch completely. They are called either saints, or idiots, or patriots, or heroes. But the world is on them.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      27 May 2016 22: 35
      +1
      Quote: housewife
      Faith, religion, customs - all this is nonsense. If this were the case, everyone would have lived peacefully for a long time, each with his own concept of God.

      Well, actually, it is precisely the religious foundations that unfortunately are still one of the main factors provoking wars and loss of life. It was the Muslim terrorists who blew up another passenger plane near Rhodes.

      Or do you think that the same suicides who carried out and are carrying out terrorist attacks on the "forces of the crusaders" have any other motives other than religious ones?
  14. Torins
    Torins 27 May 2016 17: 11
    +2
    Quote: housewife
    Come on! Faith, religion, customs - all this is nonsense. If this were the case, everyone would have lived peacefully for a long time, each with his own concept of God. Everywhere - only and always profit, nothing but profit. For the sake of profit they will live in a world with the most vile little people, for the sake of profit - they will betray and sell their own. And the world stands only on those people who have a conscience. And there are not so many of them, but, apparently, it’s enough that the world does not scotch completely. They are called either saints, or idiots, or patriots, or heroes. But the world is on them.

    It is not necessary to impose a psychological model of the modern on a medieval person, this is a very gross mistake. Then faith in God was unlimited, for the sake of protecting their faith, people were ready to look anyone's asshole. And they could not sow the fields if someone authoritative in church affairs spread the word about the end of the world around the world. And this really happened a couple of times).
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 19: 12
      +1
      And also a crowd of hunger ... x fanatics could go to free the Holy Sepulcher. But the story is made entirely by sane people. As a resident of Belarus, the history of GDL should be well known to you. And how many times did the princes go over or promise to switch to another faith in order to achieve momentary benefits, too.
  15. ver_
    ver_ 27 May 2016 18: 36
    -6
    Quote: ovod84
    I would not say that Muslims lived well under the yoke of European Christians, but I do not argue Saladin lost the battle, but won the war by defeating the crusaders, leaving Jerusalem behind. I can say that in that era the East was more tolerant than Christian Catholics, Jews lived high like Christians, they paid a tax to the treasury of Dzhizyu, which was paid not by the Muslim population, they were not burned or expelled.

    .... Christ was crucified in 1185. The Semites began to plant Christianity. (The cult of Christ since he was a Jew ..)
    They explained the fall of Jerusalem by the fact that many Jews accepted the cult of alien gods (paganism) .. The planting of the cult of Christ led to the split of paganism into Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and the formation of a new faith - Islam. This happened in the 15th century. Thanks to the Jews, Islam (a modified paganism) received a new faith ...
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 19: 00
      +6
      The pagans broke up into two branches of Christianity?) Before that, apparently, there was an Ecumenical pagan patriarch who was killed by evil Jews. And you gathered this information from the tablets miraculously preserved and saved from the Jewish conspiracy. I really hope that this is a banter on your part.
      Yes, something insidious Jews did not help much that they divided our paganism into Catholics and Orthodox
    2. Kaiten
      Kaiten 27 May 2016 21: 21
      +3
      Quote: ver_
      The Semites began to plant Christianity. (The cult of Christ since he was a Jew ..)

      Well, finally, but I was thinking. When at last the fart will break through and write who is to blame for the quarrel between Baldwin and Salladin.
  16. ver_
    ver_ 27 May 2016 19: 22
    -5
    Quote: ovod84
    I would not say that Muslims lived well under the yoke of European Christians, but I do not argue Saladin lost the battle, but won the war by defeating the crusaders, leaving Jerusalem behind. I can say that in that era the East was more tolerant than Christian Catholics, Jews lived high like Christians, they paid a tax to the treasury of Dzhizyu, which was paid not by the Muslim population, they were not burned or expelled.

    Quote: ovod84
    I would not say that Muslims lived well under the yoke of European Christians, but I do not argue Saladin lost the battle, but won the war by defeating the crusaders, leaving Jerusalem behind. I can say that in that era the East was more tolerant than Christian Catholics, Jews lived high like Christians, they paid a tax to the treasury of Dzhizyu, which was paid not by the Muslim population, they were not burned or expelled.

    Quote: ovod84
    I would not say that Muslims lived well under the yoke of European Christians, but I do not argue Saladin lost the battle, but won the war by defeating the crusaders, leaving Jerusalem behind. I can say that in that era the East was more tolerant than Christian Catholics, Jews lived high like Christians, they paid a tax to the treasury of Dzhizyu, which was paid not by the Muslim population, they were not burned or expelled.

    in different years

    27-05-2016

    miranda32















    .... Christ was crucified in 1185. The Semites began to plant Christianity. (The cult of Christ since he was a Jew ..)
    The fall of Yerusalim
    and they explained that many Jews accepted the cult of alien gods (paganism) .. The planting of the cult of Christ led to the split of paganism into Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and the formation of a new faith - Islam. This happened in the 15th century. Thanks to the Jews, Islam received a new faith ...
    (modified paganism)
    Thus Saladin could not fight with Muslims and Christians
    in 1177 there was still no Christianity and Islam ..
    This is more like a 2 crusade in which the Bulgarian king ambushed and killed Yaroslav Balduin, the German king and made the bowl of his skull ..
    Saladin and Balbuin - have something in common .. d
    All the "historians" twisted the whole history of your mother, composing their own (of course, ancient history) for each state, using the same events in different variations at different times ..
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 27 May 2016 19: 33
      +2
      The discoveries did not end there. I beg you to introduce me to this innermost knowledge. And then stupid archaeologists and historians fight in the field and libraries. Some kind of diabolical radiocarbon analysis was invented by charlatans.
      And it turns out like a small chest just opens. And you have no information there, who Otzi killed and what was the name of the sufferer?
      1. Kaiten
        Kaiten 27 May 2016 21: 24
        +1
        Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
        And you don’t have information there who killed Otzi

        Is it really not clear who?
        1. Mikhail Matyugin
          27 May 2016 22: 38
          +2
          Quote: Kaiten
          Is it really not clear who?

          We guess. Definitely eaters of Christian babies! laughing

          By the way, a question for you, dear Kaiten, and may be for all Israeli comrades - do you have any photos from the battlefield (at least rough) at Monjisar (Tell AlSafit)?
          1. kalibr
            kalibr 28 May 2016 07: 04
            0
            This is Osprey you ordered such pictures - admit it?
            1. Mikhail Matyugin
              28 May 2016 07: 59
              0
              Quote: kalibr
              This is Osprey you ordered such pictures - admit it?

              No, it's just that there are no photos fresh from the battlefield.
          2. Kaiten
            Kaiten 28 May 2016 12: 59
            +1
            Quote: Mikhail Matyugin
            We guess. Definitely eaters of Christian babies!

            By the way, a question for you, dear Kaiten, and may be for all Israeli comrades - do you have any photos from the battlefield (at least rough) at Monjisar (Tell AlSafit)?

            SW Michael will do:
            http://bukvoed.livejournal.com/135996.html?thread=911164
      2. kalibr
        kalibr 27 May 2016 21: 57
        0
        Don't you know? Fathers are the Father, that is, the Pope is the Ecumenical Patriarch, they killed this one, and his name is Yaroslav the Wise, he is Alexander Nevsky, and so on. All of them merged in it, and afterwards they split again, as did Saladin and Baldwin - all in one! Dark Ivan, as I am with you. But you see - little by little, I have already truncated a piece of truth!
        1. Torins
          Torins 27 May 2016 23: 27
          +1
          Don't you know? Fathers are the Father, that is, the Pope is the Ecumenical Patriarch, they killed this one, and his name is Yaroslav the Wise, he is Alexander Nevsky, and so on. All of them merged in it, and afterwards they split again, as did Saladin and Baldwin - all in one! Dark Ivan, as I am with you. But you see - little by little, I have already truncated a piece of truth!

          What do you smoke? I want the same thing fellow
          1. Chisayna
            Chisayna 28 May 2016 00: 18
            0
            When I served, defending the southern borders of the CIS, they found char and heroin in the pockets of the killed militants. Some servicemen used it. Their "roof" was "ripped off" at times. But what kind of "bouquet" I use "ver" still can't figure it out.
          2. kalibr
            kalibr 28 May 2016 07: 02
            0
            Oh, the recipe is simple! You buy a couple of Fomenko's books, then you print out the posts of some of the local "comrades" and ... tear the sheets of both. Fine! You add dried horse dung, but not much. Then you stir, into the pipe and smoke! Just like that!
          3. Weyland
            Weyland 20 July 2017 21: 01
            0
            Quote: Torins
            What do you smoke?

            With the words “irony” and “banter” you are obviously unfamiliar? Something smoked ver_, and kalibr just masterfully jokes on it!
        2. Cherkashin Ivan
          Cherkashin Ivan 28 May 2016 08: 45
          +1
          Oh, dark. And also to me the light of Fomenko and his followers are not allowed to come damned common sense and various heretics, such as Puchkov and Zhukov.
          By the way, I recommend to see a lot of positive emotions.
    2. Chisayna
      Chisayna 27 May 2016 22: 17
      -1
      Nda, Baldwin, Balbuin, so close to Baboon.ver, you need to urgently see a doctor.
  17. Torins
    Torins 27 May 2016 23: 22
    0
    Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
    And also a crowd of hunger ... x fanatics could go to free the Holy Sepulcher. But the story is made entirely by sane people. As a resident of Belarus, the history of GDL should be well known to you. And how many times did the princes go over or promise to switch to another faith in order to achieve momentary benefits, too.

    What you are talking about was in the 15th century; in the article, I remember it is about the 12th century fool
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 28 May 2016 08: 38
      0
      I am aware of the history of ON in your homeland.) But do you really think that in 3 centuries human nature has changed?
  18. ver_
    ver_ 28 May 2016 10: 39
    -1
    Quote: Chisain
    When I served, defending the southern borders of the CIS, they found char and heroin in the pockets of the killed militants. Some servicemen used it. Their "roof" was "ripped off" at times. But what kind of "bouquet" I use "ver" still can't figure it out.

    ..for the very gifted, as well as the Semites and nationalities, the "bouquet" that I use is contraindicated ..
    1. Chisayna
      Chisayna 28 May 2016 22: 31
      0
      Yes, such a "bouquet" is available only to those who are from the same ward with Napoleon, Christ, Balbuin, and other patients.
    2. Molot1979
      Molot1979 24 July 2017 04: 51
      0
      Well, at least I honestly admitted that I was using something. Specifically Aryan, but no less killer-roofing.
  19. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 28 May 2016 10: 54
    0
    Interestingly, I look forward to continuing.
  20. Torins
    Torins 28 May 2016 13: 43
    0
    Quote: Cherkashin Ivan
    I am aware of the history of ON in your homeland.) But do you really think that in 3 centuries human nature has changed?

    Of course, in the 15th century a radical change began in the psychology of society, which eventually led to the Renaissance.
    1. Cherkashin Ivan
      Cherkashin Ivan 28 May 2016 15: 04
      0
      So I imagine the great representative of the Age of Rebirth of Keistut (14th century). Leonardo cried with envy looking at him.
  21. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 3 June 2016 07: 46
    0
    Very unpleasant, constantly mentioned word - Islamists! It seems that ISIS attacked the enlightened European states. At that time, feudal states fought in Palestine, unions were created and disintegrated, Muslim and Christian states also fought among themselves, seeking their interests, and religion is just an ideology. Is the author accidentally not an Israeli citizen?
    1. Weyland
      Weyland 20 July 2017 21: 04
      0
      Quote: JääKorppi
      Is the author accidentally not an Israeli citizen?

      If you took the trouble to study the history of the Crusades (in particular, the number of Jewish pogroms committed by the crusaders), you would in no way suspect an author who clearly sympathizes with the crusaders, belonging to the people of Israel! laughing
  22. Mikhail Matyugin
    9 June 2016 00: 50
    0
    Quote: JääKorppi
    Very unpleasant, constantly mentioned word - Islamists! It seems that ISIS attacked the enlightened European states.

    Sorry, you obviously didn’t read the Arabian chronicles of that era.
    And the question is, what do you propose to call the army, overwhelmed by the idea of ​​a ghazavat and in a military campaign against the Christians? Peaceful kindergarten went for a walk?

    Quote: JääKorppi
    Is the author accidentally not an Israeli citizen?

    No, the author is not a citizen of Israel, that's for sure.
  23. Molot1979
    Molot1979 24 July 2017 05: 38
    0
    A couple of comments. Firstly, do not try so clearly to draw an analogy with our times. Still, the army of Salah al-Din is not the "Islamists." Secondly, do not drool emotion on the theme of "peaceful coexistence" and "religious tolerance." It was by no means peaceful. A quote from Muslim authors does not mean that local Muslims were free like the wind, but only that the inhabitants were quite wealthy, because in the Kingdom of Jerusalem there was normal economic and fiscal policy. And the peasants suffered less from the constant medieval feuds. And do not forget that it was the crusaders who came to Muslims to teach them how to pray, and not vice versa. If you really like to quote the sources, dear author, faintly recall the description of the assault on Jerusalem from the Cretans themselves? Something, as I recall, on the topic "10 thousand infidels were killed in the central mosque" and "horses walked through the streets in the blood to the bitten"? So Saladin had nothing to love his enemies, like any fighter from his army. Nevertheless, my forgetful author, let me remind you that when Jerusalem surrendered to Saladin, he did not carry out a similar massacre, but released the defenders for a ransom. And he didn’t let his army cut them, although he could have broken the word, and there would have been nothing to him for that. Well, this is purely so, in terms of the terrible "Islamists."
    Another point: in the courtyard of the 12th century. What is the "mobilization potential"? There are no mobilizations. Professional feudal warriors, their squads and mercenaries are fighting. Sometimes the city militia is involved, but it is a lubricant for swords, not warriors. So about 30 thousand soldiers of Saladin - this is not even funny. One must understand some of the simplest things. Most likely, his army was larger than that of the crusaders. And it may even be that for sieges, Saladin also included militias in it, which gave a large number. That’s why there wasn’t enough food either, the army had to be sent to robbery. But the real, real fighters of the sultan was not much more than his opponent. Otherwise Baldwin’s army could not have done it. After all, these ... how are they there ... conditions for victory in the form of training, good weapons and fiery faith were among Muslims. And Christians correctly implemented the principle of beating the enemy in pieces. It was in this that the military talent of the young king was manifested. However, this victory only pushed back the inevitable. In 1187, after the death of Baldwin, the battle of Hattin took place and that was the kingdom of Jerusalem - that’s all. And after another hundred years - and in general all the crusader states of the Holy Land - everything.
    1. Mikhail Matyugin
      12 July 2018 12: 36
      0
      Quote: Molot1979
      Secondly, do not drool emotion on the theme of "peaceful coexistence" and "religious tolerance." It was by no means peaceful.

      It was peaceful, and there was economic prosperity and religious tolerance, much like in modern Israel, when Israeli Arabs hold on to the seemingly hateful Israeli citizenship.

      Quote: Molot1979
      And the peasants suffered less from the constant medieval feuds.

      The problem is that the peasant population is from Christians - that there are immigrants from Europe, that there are practically no locals in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Rare Christian "farmers" existed, but they lived on small estates, and were some kind of armed settlers rather. The Christian population was then concentrated in cities; they were artisans and traders. And the bulk of the tax-paying population cultivating the land were precisely Muslims of various origins. But who did not at all seek to leave the aisles of the seemingly hated Kingdom of Jerusalem.

      Quote: Molot1979
      Nevertheless, my forgetful author, let me remind you that when Jerusalem surrendered to Saladin, he did not carry out a similar massacre, but released the defenders for a ransom. And he didn’t let his army cut them, although he could have broken the word, and there would have been nothing to him for that.

      Hmm, well, firstly, I didn’t drink with you on Brudershaft, therefore it’s more polite. Secondly, you apparently don’t know that Saladin WANTED to capture Jerusalem by force and arrange a massacre there, but CANNOT COULD do this! and the inhabitants AGREED for surrender (while the crusaders in 1099 took Jerusalem by storm, and the inhabitants of the city REFUSED to surrender before that). Do you feel the difference?

      Well and still - if some ruler violated this word, then all the tavernas and villages at first in the Middle East, and then on, would know about it, and this ruler would simply turn into an outcast, with him no one would want to have business.

      Quote: Molot1979
      But the real, real fighters of the sultan was not much more than his opponent

      Read the calculations of the armed forces of Saladin, taken for this campaign - the data of William of Tire, received from prisoners, the data of the local chronicler Mikhail Syriyets and the data of Muslim sources are similar. At Saladin, only one regiment of the personal guard outnumbered all the forces of Christian knights in this battle ...

      Quote: Molot1979
      However, this victory only pushed back the inevitable.

      It's funny that Saladin himself never thought so! And only after the death of Baldwin IV began to actively try to capture Jerusalem.

      Quote: Molot1979
      the battle of Hattin took place and on this the Kingdom of Jerusalem - that's all.

      As everything is simple and fast, the reality was a little different. Actually, do you know that the date of the fall of Christian Jerusalem is 1244 year? And this is 57 years after Hattin! and they conquered this Holy City finally, for 700 years, its already Egyptian Mamluks, and that only thanks to the horde of Khorezmians who came already from Khorasan.
  24. Natali_2017
    Natali_2017 17 June 2018 21: 18
    0
    I think Saladin was not indifferent to Baldwin. In any case, there is something to ship) Hot Kurdish - French couple <3.